THE TREASON OF CLIMATE JUSTICE……
Exclusive: The Treason of ‘Climate Justice’
William R. Hawkins
Barcelona, Spain was the site of the most recent United Nations climate conference, part of a series of meetings that have filled 5-star hotels around the world. It was the last full preliminary conference before the Copenhagen meeting in December where a new global treaty is to be written restricting greenhouse gas emissions and thus controlling economic activity around the world. Some 4,500 people attended the November 2-6 gathering, representing national governments, international organizations, and a dizzying array of special interests groups and environmental activists. There was much extremist rhetoric about “saving the planet†from the floods and famines that will supposedly result from allegedly human-induced changes to the climate. Yet, behind this carnival atmosphere was the usual clash of national interests. There is nothing “united†about the UN, a fact that should surprise no one. What may be surprising, and is certainly alarming, is a movement on the American Left that supports the ambitions of China and other foreign states against the economic and security interests of the United States within the UN negotiations.
The code name for this anti-American effort is “climate justice.†It is predicated on the notion that the U.S. and other advanced economies in Europe and Japan must step back from their prosperity and lower their living standards while transferring massive amounts of wealth, production capacity and technology to the developing countries. The objective is not to change the climate, but to change the balance of power in the world.
During the Barcelona meeting, 50 African states walked out in protest. According to the statement released by the African Civil Society group, the complaint was. “So far commitments from the industrialized countries have been way below the scientifically acceptable reduction of 40-45 percent and 85 – 90 percent below the 1990 levels by 2020 and 2050 respectively. Unless deeper greenhouse emission reductions are met, the planet is in a real danger of destruction.†The real reason for the demand that the industrialized nations make such crippling reductions in their economic activity is so the developing countries in Africa and elsewhere do not have to make any cuts at all.
ACS rejected the Danish Prime Minister’s statement that “Our end goal is an internationally legally binding treaty for when the Kyoto treaty comes to an end in 2012.†The ACS felt, “This reflects a clear bias against the demands of developing countries for the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and are unacceptable.†The Kyoto Protocol, drawn up in 1997, applied only to the developed countries and placed no obligations on the developing world. The developing world wants this same formula to continue, and indeed, had this written into the Bali Roadmap adopted in 2007 to guide the UN towards the Copenhagen treaty.
The Bali Roadmap was consistent with the founding document of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) drawn up in 1992, and foolishly agreed to by the U.S. The third sentence in the opening findings of the UNFCCC reads, “The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries, that per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.†So the advanced countries must cut back, while the developing countries are left free to move ahead at full speed, even if they add to global pollution.
Starting with the assumption that the world’s problems are caused by the West leads to the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities†embedded in every UN document. All should be concerned about the climate problem, but no one outside the West is obligated to make any sacrifices. Yet, even the notion of a common concern has come under assault. The Times of India reported November 6th that the Western attempt to merely include a “shared vision†statement in the treaty “would destroy the firewall between the higher level of commitments of the rich countries and the conditional obligations of the rest.†It was thus opposed by India, China, and the Group of 77 developing nations. The ACS declared “The attempts by EU and other developed countries to arrive at a political declaration in Copenhagen…shall be resisted.â€
The United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol precisely because it did not apply to the developing countries. Prior to the Kyoto negotiation, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution by a vote of 95-0 saying the U.S. should not sign any agreement that failed to apply to all countries. An unequal agreement “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States†by giving the nations free of UN restrictions a competitive edge in production and trade. Neither the Bill Clinton nor the George W. Bush administrations implemented the Kyoto program.
It is thus imperative to the UN process that Washington signs on this time. Domestic Green activists are working hard to advance the ambitions of those foreign governments who want to cripple America while pursuing their own growth strategies. For example, BeyondTalk.net applauded when, “African delegates walked out of pre-Copenhagen UN talks in Barcelona, Spain, demanding that rich countries commit to deeper and faster emissions cuts – while European activists engaged in civil disobedience to support the walkout demands.†BeyondTalk.net is dedicated to “Building a movement for radical social change†through the use of civil disobedience. It is part of a movement to hold a “global day of action for climate justice†November 30th to pressure Washington to drop its demands that any treaty apply to all countries.
China has been jockeying with India and Brazil for leadership of those opposed to constraining economic growth in the Third World. On November 5th, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu declared, “The developed countries have historical responsibility on climate change and should take the lead in the quantified reduction of emission by a large margin. They also need to support the developing countries in capital input, technology assistance, and capability building to deal with climate change. Based on that, the developing countries shall take appropriate mitigation steps in their respective countries within the framework of sustainable development.†Beijing’s official Xinhua news agency reported that at Barcelona, “The opinion of the Chinese delegation was widely shared by representatives from developing countries and least developed countries such as Benin, Lesotho, Zambia and Solomon Islands at the closing session.†China’s arguments have also been heard and embraced by anti-American Greens.
A new paper from Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINS) seems to take sections directly from Beijing’s talking points. It claims, “Developing countries negotiating in the UNFCCC have consistently and correctly pointed out that they are not responsible for climate change as a result they do not have emissions reductions targets under the Kyoto Protocol…. Industrialized countries bear a (sic) historical responsibility for climate change, and this responsibility surely includes bearing the cost in terms of lost competitiveness. It also includes a responsibility to address the current ‘climate debt’ that industrialized countries owe developing countries, because they continue to crowd out the atmospheric or ‘carbon space’ which all countries have a right to share.†This means that factories and power plants in the U.S. should be shut down so new factories and power plants can be built in the Third World. And, of course, China expects to benefit if there is “lost competitiveness†in America. The Greens see a zero-sum world, and want the U.S. (and Europe) to decline so others in the Third World can rise.
ActionforClimateJustice.org opposes any further material advances in the U.S., calling on activists to, “Help ensure that large-scale, destructive corporate-controlled false solutions to climate change are eliminated. This includes so-called ‘clean coal,’ agrofuels (industrial scale biofuels), nuclear power, and large-scale hydropower.â€
Some of those who favor a treaty and strong measures to reduce U.S. emissions see the threat of an asymmetrical treaty and want to counter any competitive edge China and others would gain by staying out of an agreement. In an October 10th New York Times op-ed, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argued, “we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas….There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards.†The climate bill passed in the House last June (H.R. 2454) includes provisions for such a tariff.
The OWINS paper opposed any such measure arguing, “Some propose addressing concerns about competitiveness by applying equalizing ‘border tax adjustments’ (BTAs) to imports, so that those imports are made correspondingly more expensive. But this approach is highly controversial as it contravenes the principle of common but differentiated responsibility for climate change, and does not address issues such as carbon budgets, climate debt and historical responsibility.†Again, the message is clear; the U.S. and the other developed countries have no legitimate right to protect themselves.
It is the same message that has been at the heart of Left-wing opposition to every other American security measure from missile defense to counter-terrorism, only applied now to environmental issues. It should never be forgotten that hostility to their own country is a defining characteristic of those who are attracted to the Left.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William R. Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues. He is a former economics professor and Republican Congressional staff member.
Comments are closed.
